Modern Wisdom5 Topics In Psychology That We’re Not Allowed To Talk About - Dr Cory Clark
CHAPTERS
- 0:00 – 2:00
Is pervasive misogyny still real? Evidence for a pro-female bias in the West
Chris opens by asking whether “pervasive misogyny” is a myth, and Cory distinguishes cross-cultural experiences (e.g., Cairo) from modern Western contexts. She summarizes research suggesting many measured biases now favor women—liking, leniency, and receptivity to science that portrays women positively.
- •Misogyny can be context-dependent and varies across cultures and time
- •In modern Western settings, many domains show bias in favor of women
- •Women often receive less punishment than men for similar behavior
- •Findings that portray men better than women receive greater skepticism and backlash
- 2:00 – 4:48
Measuring bias is hard—but some effects appear to have flipped around 2009
They discuss whether it’s even possible to quantify bias ‘overall’ across society. Cory argues it’s practically difficult, but highlights a pattern from multiple papers: contexts that used to advantage men (e.g., hiring in male-stereotyped roles) have shifted to favor women in recent years.
- •‘Total’ societal bias is difficult to measure across all contexts
- •Some academic domains show mixed evidence (e.g., teaching evaluations)
- •Audit-study evidence suggests hiring bias began flipping around ~2009
- •Public and media attention lags behind or ignores anti-male bias
- 4:48 – 7:27
Why media and the public focus on anti-female bias (and ignore anti-male bias)
Chris asks why mainstream narratives stay fixed on anti-female bias. Cory outlines two drivers: an evolutionary ‘protect women’ impulse and a cultural story of historical disadvantage that continues even as corrective measures overshoot.
- •Both men and women show a pro-female bias; stronger among women
- •Evolutionary framing: women as a ‘limited resource’ increases protective concern
- •Cultural narratives of historic oppression persist even after conditions change
- •Viral media incentives amplify stories that fit established expectations
- 7:27 – 15:25
Gamma bias, headline framing, and motivated skepticism toward “men-better” findings
Chris introduces ‘gamma bias’ in news framing and how it shapes perception. They connect this to studies where identical evidence is judged as sexist or valid depending on whether it flatters women, and Cory recounts her own long publication struggle with similar work.
- •Media gender-labeling: pro-women and anti-men stories get gendered headlines
- •People rate research as more sexist when it portrays women negatively
- •Equal or women-favoring results are treated as more acceptable than men-favoring
- •Perception management extends from public discourse into academic incentives
- 15:25 – 18:27
Denial of biological sex differences: strength examples and social narratives
They pivot into how even obvious average sex differences (like strength) provoke denial and counter-messaging. The discussion uses sports and search-result anecdotes to illustrate how cultural narratives can override straightforward empirical claims.
- •Even simple claims (e.g., men stronger than women) trigger backlash/denial
- •Search and media environments can preferentially surface counterexamples
- •Sports performance gaps highlight sex-linked strength and speed differences
- •Cultural discomfort with differences drives motivated reinterpretation
- 18:27 – 23:06
Women’s rise in academia and the shift toward safety, DEI expansion, and harm-based norms
Chris asks how the increasing share of women in higher education affects academic culture. Cory argues that as women become the majority among students and faculty, institutions increasingly prioritize harm concerns—trigger warnings, DEI bureaucracies, and editorial policies limiting ‘harmful’ research.
- •Women now dominate undergrad, grad school, and (in many places) faculty roles
- •Cultural shifts: trigger warnings, disinvitations, and online harassment campaigns
- •Journal/editorial norms increasingly weigh ‘dignity’ and harm over open inquiry
- •Institutional growth of DEI structures aligns with protective/harm-focused priorities
- 23:06 – 28:48
Evolutionary account of egalitarianism vs hierarchy: coalition-building, vulnerability, and conformity
Cory provides an evolutionary explanation for why women tend to be more egalitarian and harm-sensitive, while men are more comfortable with hierarchy and status differentiation. They add observations about indirect aggression, self-presentation, self-esteem differences, and pressures toward conformity.
- •Male coalition-building for conflict favored hierarchy, leadership, and status
- •Female roles emphasized caregiving, vulnerability management, and harm sensitivity
- •Women face higher costs from interpersonal conflict, increasing conformity pressure
- •Small average personality differences can compound into large cultural effects
- 28:48 – 36:41
Truth vs moral desirability in science: free speech stats and the ‘purpose of academia’ debate
They examine Cory’s survey results showing gender differences in academic values—truth-seeking and free speech vs inclusion and harm reduction. A philosophical exchange follows on why truth should be prioritized and how even truth-advocates often justify it via harm-prevention downstream.
- •Survey differences: men more pro-free speech/academic freedom; women more harm/inclusion-oriented
- •Men vs women framing: ‘empirically correct’ vs ‘morally desirable’
- •Debate about whether truth is intrinsically good or instrumentally good
- •Suppressing inquiry can create larger second-order harms and failed interventions
- 36:41 – 42:12
Retractions and unintended consequences: the female-mentor paper and why suppression can backfire
Cory discusses a high-profile retraction (female mentors and mentee outcomes) and argues the controversy illustrates flawed harm logic. If uncomfortable findings are suppressed, researchers avoid investigating mechanisms—preventing solutions and potentially increasing harm.
- •Case study: backlash and retraction over female mentor–female mentee outcome findings
- •Critiques targeted implications more than core evidence, in Cory’s view
- •Suppression discourages follow-up research that could identify fixes
- •Movements like MeToo can also have unpredictable downstream effects (e.g., collaboration avoidance)
- 42:12 – 48:12
Are disparities caused by patriarchy? The ‘gender-equality paradox’ and preference-based choices
Chris challenges the idea that patriarchy and socialization explain most psychological differences and representation gaps. Cory points to evidence that in more egalitarian countries, some gender differences and occupational sorting can increase—suggesting preferences and evolved inclinations matter.
- •Some claim differences are purely cultural; Cory argues biology + choice plays a role
- •In more egalitarian countries, sex differences in interests/outcomes can widen
- •Underrepresentation in STEM isn’t automatically evidence of discrimination
- •Elite feminist narratives may not match the priorities of many women
- 48:12 – 53:04
Slut-shaming and sexual competition: why women police women more than men
They explore gendered patterns in slut-shaming and why male promiscuity is often socially rewarded rather than punished. Cory and Chris discuss intersexual competition, preselection dynamics, and why insults differ by sex (slut vs incel/cuck).
- •Slut-shaming may be driven largely by female-female competition
- •Men may not punish male promiscuity because it can raise status
- •Preselection makes male sexual success a positive signal to others
- •Male insults often target lack of sexual access; female insults target promiscuity
- 53:04 – 1:03:08
Why evolutionary psychology is hated: group differences, genetics, and politically ‘dangerous’ conclusions
Chris asks why evolutionary psychology draws so much hostility. Cory argues that controversial conclusions often involve group differences (sex/race) and become most taboo when framed as evolved or genetic—especially if they appear to favor high-status groups.
- •Evolutionary psychology and behavioral genetics are lightning rods for controversy
- •Taboos center on group differences, particularly sex and race
- •Findings are most punished when they seem to advantage men or whites
- •Irony: these fields often show stronger replicability than social psychology
- 1:03:08 – 1:09:52
The taboo conclusions list and politicization: sex binary, evolved coercion, STEM gaps, and conservative discrimination
They enumerate the most taboo conclusions Cory identified via interviews and surveys, and discuss additional political taboos like discrimination against conservatives in psychology. The conversation expands into broader concerns about tribalism, race salience, class signals, and institutional narratives.
- •Taboos include: evolved sex differences, sex binary, evolved sexual coercion, non-bias drivers of STEM gaps
- •Other taboos: race-related claims and discrimination against conservatives in academia
- •Academics may explicitly endorse hiring/talk discrimination against conservatives
- •Shift from color-blind ideals to increased race salience and even segregation-like proposals
- 1:09:52 – 1:22:40
Censorship, self-censorship, and preference falsification: loud minorities shaping policy
Cory explains results from surveying ~500 psychology professors about suppressing ‘harmful’ findings, noting most oppose suppression. Yet vocal activists and self-censorship create distorted impressions of consensus; she introduces preference falsification and how revealing true norms could trigger rapid change.
- •Most professors say findings should ‘never’ be suppressed; extreme policies don’t reflect the median view
- •Those who favor truth often self-censor more, skewing public perception
- •Vocal minorities can capture power (editorships, admin) and shift policy
- •Preference falsification: people publicly conform while privately dissent, enabling sudden norm cascades
- 1:22:40 – 1:34:13
Middle-aged white female ‘overlords,’ maternalistic fragility framing, and what Cory is doing next
They discuss the demographic and ideological profile Cory believes drives censorship norms, plus the ‘fragility’ framing of minorities as unable to cope with ideas or jokes. Cory closes with upcoming work on politicization and promoting adversarial collaborations, then shares where to follow her.
- •Critique of ‘maternalistic’ paternalism: protecting groups by treating them as fragile
- •Evidence claims: progressives may behave more condescendingly toward minorities than conservatives
- •Demography as destiny: fewer men entering academia may accelerate cultural shifts
- •What’s next: a politicization paper and efforts to normalize adversarial collaborations; where to find her work
